The Phrase Third World

In Canada that I know at close quarters, people referred to as RED INDIANS or ESKIMOS, the later term meaning meat-eaters are no longer designated as such. These terms are outmoded. They were given by naive and sometimes racist early European discoverers or pathfinders in North America. The rosy Europeans (who are erroneously referred to as whites) gave them the prefix name "red," because of the red ocher leaves they smeared on themselves for decoration and not that they were truly red. [Recall that in the past some continental African women smeared red cam-wood pest on themselves as cosmetic decoration. It would have been wrong for a new comer to call them red Africans because of this coloration as was the case with the First Nation Peoples of North America.] Calling them red or Eskimos nowadays is considered derogatory, racist and that is politically incorrect.


A new phrase-term has been coined for them and that is the First Nation People (s). Use that and Canadians and to some extent enlightened Americans will understand what you mean. "First" in this context stands for the prima occupantis, that is the aboriginals. If this line of thought is applied to Africa, and Africans being the first persons on earth (archaeological evidence), Africa could be called the First Continent and its nation states be called First Nation States and its peoples First Peoples.


It has to be crystal clear that 'Third' that the French journalists who started this application is misapplied. It originally stood for those who would not side with the capitalists or communist in the UNO General Assembly during an election. Therefore, they were non-aligned. Japan, then the Republic of South Africa, Korea and many others were under this third world and economically they were by far developed than African states. Those who misapplied it, used it for those countries that were economically developing or underdeveloped and many in Asia, South and Central America and Africa fall under this category. This was then a misnomer.


Of course journalists who are predominantly from the northern hemisphere who employ it in their literature, feel good psychologically. It must be understood that in order to dominate a person you have to make him feel inferior to you. Make him know that his color, ways of life, food, name and even language are inferior vis a vis yours the invader or colonialists. Consequently, colonialists or neocolonialists apply these tactics to sit on Africans and other so-called Third World citizens. Remember too that this was what slave owners did to their slaves, properties so as to treat them the way they liked.


A time will come when the so-called developed will be underdeveloped and developing. Do not ask me when and how? Some states that were once upon a time called developing or underdeveloped are now developed and to keep on referring to them as developing is wrong. There is nothing that developed Westerners can do that they will not do and even better. If the once upon a time less developed are developed in the way Western want, that will be good for all mankind. It will be when African nation states will wake up from their slumber as some are grudgingly doing and know that they have the know-how, natural resources, and ability to convert all their raw materials to finished products before they can leave their shores for developed "climes". When that time will come, some Western journalists will stop the use of DARK CONTINENT of Stanley, Third World and many more that make them feel "superior" to others. One wonders what term these excited journalists would employ?


Another abused term is Afrique Noir, Black Africa. Again this comes out so often in French literature when they want to continue with the fragmentation of Africa and perhaps go back to when the lighter-your-skin was the more of a human being you were in the days of slavery and slave trade. Instead, they should say Arabic Africa and Africa South of the Sahara. The use of color is anachronistic, divisive and misleading as it leaves out many in the so-called Black Africa who are not stricto senso black. In Nigeria, Chad, The Sudan, Kenya, Zimbabwe aka Monomotapa, South Africa and Botswana there are sizable numbers of Caucasians. For your information, the Tauregs, Fulani, Chao Arabs in Western Africa are African Caucasians and you cannot scientifically classify them as black else you are colorblind. When you head to Botswana, Namibia, Angola, Zimbabwe and South Africa, the San People, the early rosy (white) man once called Bushmen are in a sense Mongoloids. Therefore, to generalized that Africa South of the Sahara is Black Africa is not only erroneous and misleading but fragmentary and should not be bought. Why not call anyone who emanates from mother Africa, African be he or she from the three prototypes of man on earth, Mongoloid, Negroid and Caucasoid.
Dr. Viban Ngo
vibanngo@hotmail.com

> Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2010 09:38:47 +0000
> From: beckerleschar@ORANGE.SN
> Subject: The term "third world": REPLY
> To: H-WEST-AFRICA@H-NET.MSU.EDU
>
> Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2010 09:08:53 +0800
> X-Posted from H-NET List for African History and Culture
>
> From: Lorna Zukas
> ________
>
> Date: 1 September 2010
> From: Tshepo Sebakile
>
>
> Yes Africa would come first but the world today is highly operational
> along economic lines hence it will always come third. The past is the
> past we can grab something from it but also we are very much defined as
> a people by the current events, local, regional and global. It can still
> be argued that Africa is the wealthiest continent(natural resorces?)but
> to others wealth is everything and mostly its money in the Bank and how
> you use to influence others and exercise power over them. and the way
> things are, Arica has all resources, the 2nd process them, the 1st sell
> them. the value of these resorces increase with every stage, from
> extraction to finished product; and the region occupying the last stage
> would be the wealthiest and vice versa.
>
> Archaelogical evidence and evolutionary theory? They are not sufficient
> enough to convience that Africa should be termed the 1st world. the
> theory has some huge limitations and has failed to answer other
> questions raised from other disciplines. With archaelogical evidence,
> yep! one could have a point but would not win him the debate. FACT!
> everything exists, what is thought not to exist is one which has not
> been found yet. The current archaelogical evidence holds that
> the oldest animal remains are from the Ngorongoro crater, but
> have archaelogists completed their course in the quest to justify that
> the 1st ape remains were in Africa? A larger surface area still remains
> uncovered,untouched and unknown. Whatever exists in there, as long as it
> is not known remains a room to be covered to answer all questions.
>
> Yes, it has been accepted the world over, but what if the color 'ORANGE'
> is not really ORANGE but rather 'YELLOW'; but just because somebody
> somewhere named these colors and has been accepted worlwide, we have
> come to terms of recognising them as such. But if i was to cage a
> hundred kids away fom this world and teach them to recognise yellow as
> black, black as green etc. and someone from this world would be thought
> to be very abnormal, stupid and dull to recognise black as black in The
> Cage World.